Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

It's a wrong deal, but Boris will sort it¬† ūüôā

He's no intention to sort it out. 

Perhaps everyone has missed the point of this President and this PM, their intention is to create chaos.

As within chaos criminality can flourish unchecked. It's Putin's lesson well taught to these two "leaders"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Surfer said:

He's no intention to sort it out. 

Perhaps everyone has missed the point of this President and this PM, their intention is to create chaos.

As within chaos criminality can flourish unchecked. It's Putin's lesson well taught to these two "leaders"

And what happens if the EU decide they are going to give us a free trade deal with no connection to them  ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new¬†FTA with no tariffs or alignment to their regulations?¬†Dream on.... if you think that could happen it‚Äôs no wonder we are in this mess. A trade agreement means alignments or agreed penalties (tariffs) to offset unfair advantages.¬†¬†Given we had a perfectly good arrangement i.e.¬†‚ÄúThe Common Market‚ÄĚ the correct¬†approach would have been to enhance it / modernize it. Who has one of the big three and leader of the smaller countries we have just¬†thrown away.¬†

No Boris and his vulture capital backers want to tear up everything - human rights the next thing apparently. You do realize who gets the short straw when ‚Äúred tape‚ÄĚ,¬†finance¬†and employment and environmental laws¬†get¬†axed don‚Äôt you ?¬†

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was great¬†when it was the just¬†¬†‚ÄúThe Common Market‚ÄĚ but unfortunately it's morphed into something far greater and worse.¬†¬†

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Surfer said:

A new¬†FTA with no tariffs or alignment to their regulations?¬†Dream on.... if you think that could happen it‚Äôs no wonder we are in this mess. A trade agreement means alignments or agreed penalties (tariffs) to offset unfair advantages.¬†¬†Given we had a perfectly good arrangement i.e.¬†‚ÄúThe Common Market‚ÄĚ the correct¬†approach would have been to enhance it / modernize it. Who has one of the big three and leader of the smaller countries we have just¬†thrown away.¬†

No Boris and his vulture capital backers want to tear up everything - human rights the next thing apparently. You do realize who gets the short straw when ‚Äúred tape‚ÄĚ,¬†finance¬†and employment and environmental laws¬†get¬†axed don‚Äôt you ?¬†

Aye. Quite predictable and I'm sure the idiots wil be cheering. Because who needs rights after all??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

It was great¬†when it was the just¬†¬†‚ÄúThe Common Market‚ÄĚ but unfortunately it's morphed into something far greater and worse.¬†¬†

That 'morphing' was primarily driven by the UK, and specifically by a Conservative Prime Minister who I imagine you hold in high esteem - Margaret Thatcher.

She, unlike recent Tory governments, understood the massive benefits which would, and did, flow from the Single Market and strangely I don't recall her having any difficult exercising UK sovereignty - because also unlike current day Brexiteers she knew perfectly well that UK sovereignity always rested with the UK Parliament and was never at any point given up to the EU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, was considered as a symbol of Euroscepticism. She was an opponent of the Maastricht Treaty, which was ratified by the UK in 1993.'

The single market. Who doesn't/didn't want that?

Thatcher was gone by 1993 so mention of her is not really relevant, she would clearly  have had a problem with the sovereignty issue, the Euro and federalisation.

Do you, personally, want the UK to adopt the Euro? 

(No answer anticipated.)

 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

'Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, was considered as a symbol of Euroscepticism. She was an opponent of the Maastricht Treaty, which was ratified by the UK in 1993.'

The single market. Who doesn't want that?

 

She signed the Single European Act in 1987.

She knew that you had to in the EU to get the best from it.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

She signed the Single European Act in 1987.

She knew that you had to in the EU to get the best from it.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/

Integration, not federalisation.

I read that article and it seems that only the headline really supports your case.

Tebbit thinks she would have opposed brexit for example, but that's just one of quite a few examples of the way she changed in her attitude towards the EU .

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

It was great¬†when it was the just¬†¬†‚ÄúThe Common Market‚ÄĚ but unfortunately it's morphed into something far greater and worse.¬†¬†

yep into a banana republic with no free speech, a weaponised covid policy strong arm from some unelected rule breaker, a global offshoring regime for Russian oligarchs and criminals from around the world, guaranteed to all comers with money, a torture regime abroad that has not abated despite the efforts of human rights organisations.

Add to that, our blonde pirate might be proud of having busted the union with his international law breaking and Japan better watch out what slippery frog might emerge from that tiny slimy tadpole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Integration, not federalisation.

I read that article and it seems that only the headline really supports your case.

Tebbit thinks she would have opposed brexit for example, but that's just one of quite a few examples of the way she changed in her attitude towards the EU .

The article is a lot more balanced than your interpretation, it also says

"Lord Powell, her private secretary, recently said she would have re-negotiated membership and then backed a vote to remain."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

The article is a lot more balanced than your interpretation, it also says

"Lord Powell, her private secretary, recently said she would have re-negotiated membership and then backed a vote to remain."

 

If we were able to re-negotiate membership, the vote my have gone the other way !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lord Powell, her private secretary, recently said she would have re-negotiated membership and then backed a vote to remain."

 

She would have "attempted" to re-negotiate entry would have been more accurate. I would rate her chances of doing that  as nil. How about you?

 

In any case  this Thatcher business is superfluous  to today's problems as Thatcher would never have let Brussels advance in the direction as it has done without disputing the UK's position in in to the point of exiting.

Remember the hard time she gave Major over Maastricht? 

Campbell was later to attempt reform, without success. Whilst even Gordon Brown, a Europhile, had previously rejected the idea of a common currency because it was unable to satisfy his five points:-

 

  1. Are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others could live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis?
  2. If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?
  3. Would joining EMU create better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain?
  4. What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK's financial services industry, particularly the City's wholesale markets?
  5. In summary, will joining EMU promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?

I needed not to get further than point 1. (and thinking of Greece mainly, but also considering problems in Portugal, Spain and Italy) before realising that Brown was correct in his stand-off. Interest rates are at a low point at the moment so that is not really a problem even though lending money to aid the Italian pandemic costs was light pulling a tooth. 

I suppose point 2. refers to devaluation among other things. 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

'Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, was considered as a symbol of Euroscepticism. She was an opponent of the Maastricht Treaty, which was ratified by the UK in 1993.'

The single market. Who doesn't/didn't want that?

Thatcher was gone by 1993 so mention of her is not really relevant, she would clearly  have had a problem with the sovereignty issue, the Euro and federalisation.

Do you, personally, want the UK to adopt the Euro? 

(No answer anticipated.)

 

 

 

People who voted to leave?

Edited by How I Wrote Elastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

The single market. Who doesn't/didn't want that?

Thatcher was gone by 1993 so mention of her is not really relevant, she would clearly  have had a problem with the sovereignty issue, the Euro and federalisation.

Do you, personally, want the UK to adopt the Euro?

Strangely some on here find it difficult to come to terms with the UK having left the EU. Even more strange is that these tend to be Leavers rather than Remainers. Now would be a good time to remind them that we have left like they wanted and they now need to own the rights and responsibilities that comes with that.

They voted to leave the Single Market. That means they need to own the differences in regularity standards that involves, the duplication of bureaucracy should they wish to trade with the EU and the cost and restrictions of border checks. What I think they referred to as control of own borders.

They also need to recognise that to the EU the UK is now a third country. No more special traetment, the EU has the right to assert its sovereignity and the UK must respect this. Bringing up the Euro is just frantic whataboutery, membership is no longer possible even if the UK wanted it. On Federalisation, which was never on the cards, the UK has given up its veto.

What we need from Brexiteers are explanations. What State Rules do they want. What standards do they want and lastly what exactly is their solution for NI.

So far they have offered nothing, zip, nadda, **** all

Edited by BigFish
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Strangely some on here find it difficult to come to terms with the UK having left the EU. Even more strange is that these tend to be Leavers rather than Remainers. Now would be a good time to remind them that we have left like they wanted and they now need to own the rights and responsibilities that comes with that.

They voted to leave the Single Market. That means they need to own the differences in regularity standards that involves, the duplication of bureaucracy should they wish to trade with the EU and the cost and restrictions of border checks. What I think they referred to as control of own borders.

They also need to recognise that to the EU the UK is now a third country. No more special traetment, the EU has the right to assert its sovereignity and the UK must respect this. Bringing up the Euro is just frantic whataboutery, membership is no longer possible even if the UK wanted it. On Federalisation, which was never on the cards, the UK has given up its veto.

I  believe Brexiters do realise what is lost in all of this. Hence the continued defences posted on here. If you've won something and you're settled in yourself, you just get on with life.

Why would you care (as a Brexiter) about what Remainers think? Remainers see the dreadful road mapped out ahead (read Rawnsley today in The Guardian... An excoriating analysis of this government's approach).

Those against Brexit cannot believe what they're seeing in part, sometimes there is natural outrage, sometimes they can just see the incompetence playing out and it isn't surprising given the calibre of government. 

To continue to fight for an argument that in a way you've won means you're not happy with it underneath. And let's face it, why would a Brexiter feel that good about what they're reading each week? But that's from my viewpoint (as a very passionate remainer).

Brexit = Loss. Simple as that.

Very few gains worth much at all. The losses will be felt for decades. Scotland will be independent if there is a no deal. That will be more loss and 300 years plus of the union...gone. Historians will look back on this Cummings/Johnson government very bleakly. 

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

19 of the 27 have the Euro as currency.

Is adopting the Euro as currency a requisite of being in the EU?

 

Well we all know that, but it would be necessary if the federalists finally get their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Well we all know that, but it would be necessary if the federalists finally get their way.

I really doubt that Broadstairs. If so, it would have happened or forced years ago. We would have maintained Sterling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Well we all know that, but it would be necessary if the federalists finally get their way.

It would take all 27 countries to agree for the EU become federal, I suppose that's why it's a big 'if'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

for old times sake....

All member states of the EU are expected to adopt the Euro, once they meet the right criteria

Except Denmark, who have an opt out. As did the UK, when it was a member

Opt out is what members can do, but only if they are a member. Especially if you contribute a large portion of the membership fees. But by leaving the EU club, the anti-Euro element have actually increased the likelihood of the Euro becoming more widespread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Double MP

One thing I genuinely don't understand - if the EU actually believe Brexit will be such a disaster for the UK, as they have repeatedly told us, why is it they seem utterly terrified of us being free from their interference and control? We have to stand firm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Steve Double MP

One thing I genuinely don't understand - if the EU actually believe Brexit will be such a disaster for the UK, as they have repeatedly told us, why is it they seem utterly terrified of us being free from their interference and control? We have to stand firm.

Each week the Tories try to come up with something they think will weaken the EU's stance. Remember this from a few days ago,

"Michel Barnier to be sidelined"

This week they trying "utterly terrified". ūüėÄ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Steve Double MP

One thing I genuinely don't understand - if the EU actually believe Brexit will be such a disaster for the UK, as they have repeatedly told us, why is it they seem utterly terrified of us being free from their interference and control? We have to stand firm.

Simple answer to this question from one of the Commons more mediocre MPs is that EU are not terrified of the UK, they don't want to interfere or control. The EU is using its sovereign rights to offer a trade deal to the UK under certain terms and conditions. Should the the UK be unwilling to fulfill or even negotiate these there will be no deal, the EU will be slightly poorer and the UK significantly proportionally  poorer in the short to medium term. The EU want to avoid this.

Double campaigned at the last GE for the Withdrawal Agreement, voted to curtail scrutiny of it in Parliament and then voted to enact it. Now he thinks it is terrible. Was he lieing or didn't he understand it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   

"It would take all 27 countries to agree for the EU become federal, I suppose that's why it's a big 'if'."

 

"Present situation. The European Union (EU) is not legally (de jure) a federation, although various academics have argued that it contains some federal characteristics. ... According to Joseph H. H. Weiler,*** "Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism".

***   "Joseph Halevi Horowitz Weiler (born 2 September 1951) is a South African-American academic, currently serving as European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University Law School and Senior Fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard.

He was President of the European University Institute in Florence from 2013 until 2016.[1] He holds a diploma from the Hague Academy of International Law. Weiler is the author of works relating to the sui generis character of the European Union."

 

Complicated stuff  even by Wiki standards.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"Present situation. The European Union (EU) is not legally (de jure) a federation, although various academics have argued that it contains some federal characteristics. ... According to Joseph H. H. Weiler,*** "Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism".

***   "Joseph Halevi Horowitz Weiler (born 2 September 1951) is a South African-American academic, currently serving as European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University Law School and Senior Fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard.

He was President of the European University Institute in Florence from 2013 until 2016.[1] He holds a diploma from the Hague Academy of International Law. Weiler is the author of works relating to the sui generis character of the European Union."

 

Complicated stuff  even by Wiki standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalisation_of_the_European_Union

Above is the full article.

Other academics have argued that the EU is unlikely to evolve into a unified federal state. Kelemen (together with Andy Tarrant) has taken this view himself, arguing that limits placed on the bureaucratic capacity of the European institutions ‚Äď such as the relatively small size of the European Commission ‚Äď form a barrier to the creation of a federal European state. In their words: "widespread political opposition to the creation of anything approximating a large, unified executive bureaucracy in Brussels has long-since ended hopes, for the few who harboured them, of creating a European superstate."[11] Some common points in this context are that the European budget is very small and does not finance a lot of the economic activity of the European Union; that each member state of the European Union has its own foreign relations and has its own military; that it is often the case that European Union member states decide to opt out of agreements which they oppose; and that member states still retain sovereignty over a large number of areas which might be expected to be transferred to a federal authority under a federal system. One important fact is that treaties must be agreed by all member states even if a particular treaty has support among the vast majority of the population of the European Union

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

Steve Double MP

One thing I genuinely don't understand - if the EU actually believe Brexit will be such a disaster for the UK, as they have repeatedly told us, why is it they seem utterly terrified of us being free from their interference and control? We have to stand firm.

You're being scammed. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Load of Squit:-

 

Not the same article . My Wiki reference was in fact about Weiller. in any case.

 

I clicked on your original reference and it seemed different from the contents of your further posting  so perhaps we're all now confused. ***

I did glean this from the article you initially referenced though:

 

"Since the 1950s, European integration has seen the development of a supranational system of governance, as its institutions move further from the concept of simple intergovernmentalism and more towards a federalised system."

 

*** I have now read the lot and found your reference, but it is far from the full article.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

@ Load of Squit:-

 

Not the same article . My Wiki reference was in fact about Weiller. in any case.

 

I clicked on your original reference and it seemed different from the contents of your further posting  so perhaps we're all now confused.

I did glean this from the article you initially referenced though:

 

"Since the 1950s, European integration has seen the development of a supranational system of governance, as its institutions move further from the concept of simple intergovernmentalism and more towards a federalised system."

Looks like a case of same quote, different article. That's why it's important to post the link. ūüėÄ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalisation_of_the_European_Union

According to Joseph H. H. Weiler, "Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism".[7] Jean-Michel Josselin and Alain Marciano see the European Court of Justice as being a primary force behind building a federal legal order in the Union[8] with Josselin stating that "A complete shift from a confederation to a federation would have required to straightforwardly replace the principality of the member states vis-à-vis the Union by that of the European citizens. … As a consequence, both confederate and federate features coexist in the judicial landscape."[9]

According to Thomas Risse and Tanja A. Börzel, "The EU only lacks two significant features of a federation. First, the Member States remain the 'masters' of the treaties, i.e., they have the exclusive power to amend or change the constitutive treaties of the EU. Second, the EU lacks a real 'tax and spend' capacity, in other words, there is no fiscal federalism."[10]

Other academics have argued that the EU is unlikely to evolve into a unified federal state. Kelemen (together with Andy Tarrant) has taken this view himself, arguing that limits placed on the bureaucratic capacity of the European institutions ‚Äď such as the relatively small size of the European Commission ‚Äď form a barrier to the creation of a federal European state. In their words: "widespread political opposition to the creation of anything approximating a large, unified executive bureaucracy in Brussels has long-since ended hopes, for the few who harboured them, of creating a European superstate."[11] Some common points in this context are that the European budget is very small and does not finance a lot of the economic activity of the European Union; that each member state of the European Union has its own foreign relations and has its own military; that it is often the case that European Union member states decide to opt out of agreements which they oppose; and that member states still retain sovereignty over a large number of areas which might be expected to be transferred to a federal authority under a federal system. One important fact is that treaties must be agreed by all member states even if a particular treaty has support among the vast majority of the population of the European Union. Member states may also want legally binding guarantees that a particular treaty will not affect a nation's position on certain issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...